Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple of years ago might be an exaggeration, but Sophie shared a story in the spring that Louise didn't realize that her grandmother was the Queen (and that that was something special) until after she had started school. Sophie and Edward deliberately made the choice to keep their children out of the royal spotlight.
 
I'd be really hard pressed to believe that George at three would understand and recognize his grandmother's role as Queen. He's basically seen her as Gan-Gan. With getting a little bit older and branching out into the world with school and school mates, it will become more self evident to him just what his Gan-Gan's role really is. A child is more apt to see a parent as "Daddy" rather than see that parent as a physicist or a accountant until he's older.
 
This, to me, is part of something every father is proud to see. Descendants carrying on his name which, IIRC, was a sore point for the DoE there for a while. Once Edward is created the Duke of Edinburgh, that title will also be passed down from Philip to his male descendants through Edward and James. So, to me, it makes sense that for now Edward is Earl of Wessex. These plans were drawn up at the time of the wedding I believe. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it will be Edward that carries on the work with the Duke of Edinburgh Award too.
Philip's title will go to Charles, when he dies. ANd I think ti would be better to let that happen and then let the title be free perhaps for Harry when he marries or reaches a maturity stage... However they seem to have settled it as it is.
 
Philip's title will go to Charles, when he dies. ANd I think ti would be better to let that happen and then let the title be free perhaps for Harry when he marries or reaches a maturity stage... However they seem to have settled it as it is.


The decision of the Queen and the DoE is that when they are both gone and the title has been merged with the crown it will be recreated for Edward. This has been discussed at great length in the thread regarding the future of the title and was announced on Edward's marriage 17 years ago.
 
Yes I know. Edward will be D of Edinburgh some day...

A couple of years ago might be an exaggeration, but Sophie shared a story in the spring that Louise didn't realize that her grandmother was the Queen (and that that was something special) until after she had started school. Sophie and Edward deliberately made the choice to keep their children out of the royal spotlight.

I find that hard to believe. Perhaps George at 2 or 3 doesn't know his great Grandmother is the queen but Louise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find that hard to believe. Perhaps George at 2 or 3 doesn't know his great Grandmother is the queen but Louise?

No one is saying that Louise doesn't know now. What is being said by her mother - a woman who, unlike any of us, actually knows Louse - is that Louise didn't always know, and it wasn't until she was in school that she found out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Found out or realised??

I suspect that Louise didn't put two and two together. To her The Queen is 'granny' and not the same person on the coins, stamps etc. When she went to school that started to become more obvious until such time as she fully comprehended that her beloved 'granny' was The Queen to everyone else and when they all sang the National Anthem they were singing to save her granny.

I remember reading that Edward VII didn't realise until he was about 11 or 12 that he was his mother's heir. He knew his mother was The Queen by then of course but that he was the heir took longer. Charles seems to have understood earlier.

Kids come to a realisation of the world about them at different ages.
 
No one is saying that Louise doesn't know now. What is being said by her mother - a woman who, unlike any of us, actually knows Louse - is that Louise didn't always know, and it wasn't until she was in school that she found out.

I didn't say that Louise didn't know now.. but I find it hard to believe that she didn't know before she went to school.

Found out or realised??

I
I remember reading that Edward VII didn't realise until he was about 11 or 12 that he was his mother's heir. He knew his mother was The Queen by then of course but that he was the heir took longer. Charles seems to have understood earlier.

Kids come to a realisation of the world about them at different ages.

The story was about Edward VII as I recall that he thought that Victoria, his elder sister was the heir... which wasn't entirely unfeasible, since his mother was queen regnant and Ed himself wasn't overly clever.
Anyway, these stories are usually spun, in terms of "showing us how innocent or unworldly the royal child is."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I'm pretty sure of the exact opposite. Edward does fantastic work with his father and he almost deserves that title when his father passes. [...].

Prince Edward will never receive his father's title, as the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. He is just the number six in the line for his father's peerages. The only possibility for him to become Duke of Edinburgh is by new creation. He will then become the first Duke of the new creation instead of being his father's heir.
 
Remotely slim chance of Edward inheriting his father's title does exist. IF Charles, William, George, Harry and Andrew were all to predecease Philip then Edward would inherit it. There is more chance of Harry admittedly but never isn't true as there is a very, very slim possibility.

The story was about Edward VII as I recall that he thought that Victoria, his elder sister was the heir... which wasn't entirely unfeasible, since his mother was queen regnant and Ed himself wasn't overly clever.
Anyway, these stories are usually spun, in terms of "showing us how innocent or unworldly the royal child is."

Why he believed that Vicky would inherit over him isn't the point. The point was that he didn't realise it until he was nearly a teenager and actually had to be told it by his tutor (who records the facts in his diaries and in a letter to a family member at the time - so not a piece of spin but a fact).

Edward was way more clever than he was given credit for by his father and teachers. Had he been in a modern school he would have been encouraged to study subjects, such as Modern History, in which he was interested rather than Ancient History for which he had no interest at all. Napoleon III was very impressed by his knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars whereas his father and tutor despaired of him because he couldn't understand the Persian Wars but didn't value his knowledge of more recent conflicts. This is just an example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've deleted some back and forth bickering about whether Edward VII knew he was the heir. That conversation is just going around in circles, so let's move on. And just a reminder, please remember to treat your fellow posters with respect.
 
Remotely slim chance of Edward inheriting his father's title does exist. IF Charles, William, George, Harry and Andrew were all to predecease Philip then Edward would inherit it. There is more chance of Harry admittedly but never isn't true as there is a very, very slim possibility.



Why he believed that Vicky would inherit over him isn't the point. The point was that he didn't realise it until he was nearly a teenager and actually had to be told it by his tutor (who records the facts in his diaries and in a letter to a family member at the time - so not a piece of spin but a fact).

Edward was way more clever than he was given credit for by his father and teachers. Had he been in a modern school he would have been encouraged to study subjects, such as Modern History, in which he was interested rather than Ancient History for which he had no interest at all. Napoleon III was very impressed by his knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars whereas his father and tutor despaired of him because he couldn't understand the Persian Wars but didn't value his knowledge of more recent conflicts. This is just an example.


Modern historians seem to highlight Edward's personal influence on the creation of the entente cordiale with France, the rapprochement with Russia, and the consequent distancing between the UK and Germany. At the time, the King was hailed as a peacemaker, but, in retrospect, his foreign policy probably accelerated the path towards World War I, rather than preventing it. I am not sure how to judge his legacy then.
 
I have a horrible feeling that that war was inevitable..
Edward's intention was certainly to make peace.. NOt sure how much he really did other than oil the wheels of diplomacy and follow the Brit govt's policy..
But I dotn believe he was any Einstein.. So I'm surprised that historians are saying he had a real role in the various things like the Entente cordiale.
 
Why aren't the current, respective Dukes of Kent and Gloucester styled as the '2nd'? They both inherited these titles from their fathers, for whom the dukedoms were (most recently) created. Does the style of using ordinal numbers only begin when a dukedom becomes non-royal? So, for example, when George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (not a prince) inherits the Dukedom of Kent from his father, will he be styled as the '3rd'?
 
Last edited:
The previous creation of the title duke of Kent went extinct in 1900 upon the title holders death.

It was recreated again in 1934 for HRH Prince George (1902–1942) and following his death in 1942 it inherited by his son Prince Edward.
 
Why aren't the current, respective dukes of Kent and Gloucester styled as the '2nd'? They both inherited these titles from their fathers, for whom the dukedoms were (most recently) created. Does the style of using ordinal numbers only begin when a dukedom becomes non-royal? So, for example, when George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (not a prince) inherits the dukedom of Kent from his father, will he be styled as the '3rd'?

I don't think ordinal numbers form part of the official style of any duke, royal or non-royal. They are used as needed to clarify which duke one is citing, when there has been more than one. I suppose it is not needed for the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as their fathers can be cited as "the late duke" or "the current duke's father".
 
The previous creation of the title duke of Kent went extinct in 1900 upon the title holders death.

It was recreated again in 1934 for HRH Prince George (1902–1942) and following his death in 1942 it inherited by his son Prince Edward.
Actually the last Duke of Kent before Prince Georg was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent the fahter of Queen Victoria who died in 1820. So there was no Duke of Kent between 1820 and 1934.
 
I don't think ordinal numbers form part of the official style of any duke, royal or non-royal. They are used as needed to clarify which duke one is citing, when there has been more than one. I suppose it is not needed for the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as their fathers can be cited as "the late duke" or "the current duke's father".

Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. He inherited the position from his grandfather, Prince Arthur (the first Duke), a son of Queen Victoria. As a great-grandson of a monarch (post-1917), he was not a prince and therefore not a royal duke. Perhaps the number was applied because he was non-royal, and therefore like any regular duke, unlike in the cases of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.

Worthy of note, Alastair Windsor died before having children, and so the title became extinct, meaning there was no 3rd Duke.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. [...] You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.

Unofficially, I have certainly seen other royal dukes referred to in that matter. On this forum alone, one can find two people referring to the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as the 2nd:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...indsor-may-6-2019-a-46279-45.html#post2220126
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...nd-the-line-of-succession-7472.html#post72649
 
Unofficially, I have certainly seen other royal dukes referred to in that matter. On this forum alone, one can find two people referring to the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as the 2nd:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...indsor-may-6-2019-a-46279-45.html#post2220126
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...nd-the-line-of-succession-7472.html#post72649

So I suppose it really is just as casual as that. There really are no official rules where ordinal numbers are concerned. Okay, I suppose I'm satisfied with that answer. Thanks!

A quick question regarding capitalisation: Would it be correct to say 'the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester' or 'the dukes...'?
 
The Dukes - Duke is the title and so is capitalised in the same was as Prince or Queen.
 
Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. He inherited the position from his grandfather, Prince Arthur (the first Duke), a son of Queen Victoria. As a great-grandson of a monarch (post-1917), he was not a prince and therefore not a royal duke. Perhaps the number was applied because he was non-royal, and therefore like any regular duke, unlike in the cases of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.

Worthy of note, Alastair Windsor died before having children, and so the title became extinct, meaning there was no 3rd Duke.

It seems that it is indeed uncommon to refer to royal dukes by their ordinal number, however, I would expect them to be referred to as such once they are part of history (for example a hundred years from now). Because at that point it becomes relevant to distinguish between the two royal dukes of the same creation with the same title (the original and his son). In daily life I don't believe the ordinal is always used for other peers - but only in specific situations, especially when the discussion centers around succession or family history.
 
It seems that it is indeed uncommon to refer to royal dukes by their ordinal number, however, I would expect them to be referred to as such once they are part of history (for example a hundred years from now). Because at that point it becomes relevant to distinguish between the two royal dukes of the same creation with the same title (the original and his son). In daily life I don't believe the ordinal is always used for other peers - but only in specific situations, especially when the discussion centers around succession or family history.

Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).
 
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. [...] In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).

But did non-royal dukedoms become extinct at a faster pace on average than royal dukedoms? I would suppose that the dukes whose male line descent was numerous enough for there to be distant cousins in line to the dukedom are the minority.


Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it?

Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.
 
Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.

Shouldn’t this therefore mean that titles such as the Dukedom of York pass to the current Earl of Wessex, his son or another male relative after the death of the current Duke (Prince Andrew), as opposed to becoming extinct because of a lack of sons? This has certainly happened in a number of non-royal dukedoms, such as the 6th Duke of Devonshire, whose title passed on to a very distant cousin due to his not having a son.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).

The longer a dukedom exists the more likely it is there is some heir, so in that way, yes, the older ones are more likely to survive - because they survived the first few generations/for so long and there are more distant relatives to choose from. However, non-royal dukedoms also went extinct in the past, however, as they are no longer created we don't observe them going extinct any longer.

Check this list of dukedoms in the Peerage of Britain and Ireland and you'll see the majority went extinct of both royal and non-royal ones.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look into the most recent royal dukedoms to compare the number in line of succession (I will do another one on some non-royal dukedoms later):

Created by Queen Elizabeth II:
Duke of Sussex: 1 (at risk)
Duke of Cambridge: 2 (expected to merge with the crown)
Duke of York: 0

Created by King George VI:
Duke of Edinburgh: 9 (expected to merge with the crown)
Duke of Windsor: extinct

Created by King George V:
Duke of Kent: 8 for 2nd (likely to survive)
Duke of Gloucester: 2 for 2nd (at risk)
Duke of York: 0 (merged with the crown)

Created by Queen Victoria:
Duke of York: 5 (merged with the crown)
Duke of Clarence and Avondale: 0 (ended with death of first holder)
Duke of Albany: deprived of 2nd holder - at that point there were 3 heirs - 2 of them later in life having multiple sons and male-line grandsons
Duke of Connaught and Strathearn: 1 for 1st creation; ended with death of second holder)
Duke of Edinburgh: 1 for 1st creation but heir died before the duke; ended with death of first holder
 
Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.
Shouldn’t this therefore mean that titles such as the Dukedom of York pass to the current Earl of Wessex, his son or another male relative after the death of the current Duke (Prince Andrew), as opposed to becoming extinct because of a lack of sons? This has certainly happened in a number of non-royal dukedoms, such as the 6th Duke of Devonshire, whose title passed on to a very distant cousin due to his not having a son.


The difference is that the Earl of Wessex is no descendant of the first Duke of York of the present creation (Prince Andrew). In the case of the Duke of Devonshire or also the Dukes of Westminster those distand relatives who succeeded where male line descendants of the first or a later Duke.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look at the Duke of Richmond (also Duke of Lennox and Duke of Gordon - although the latter only applies since the 6th Duke). Currently, there are 19 male-line male heirs descending from the 6th duke (so eligible to inherit all three dukedoms). Of which only the first three are direct descendants of the current (11th) duke; numbers 4 to 14 descend from the current duke's great-great-grandfater (7th duke); while 15 to 19 descend from the great-great-great-grandfather (6th duke). However, the numbers have varied a bit over time.

For the continuity of the dukedom it seems that the 4th duke (who himself was a nephew instead of a son of the holder) was really helpful as he had 6 sons. So, from that moment on the dukedom was much less likely to go extinct... And more recently, the 7th duke having 3 sons with male-line descendants makes a difference.

First duke: 1 heir (son) at the time of his death

Second duke: 2 heirs (sons) at the time of his death

Third duke: 7 heirs (his nephew and the nephew's 6 sons - out of 14 children) at the time of his death

Fourth duke: 6 heirs (5 sons + 1 grandson) at the time of his death

Fifth duke: about 17 heirs (4 sons (a fifth passed away before him), 3 grandsons by his eldest son, 3 brothers, 7 nephews)

Sixth duke: at least 10 heirs (4 sons, 4 grandsons, 2 or 3 great-grandsons, and surely several cousins - I couldn't find the years of birth/deaths of his cousins (that were included in the '7 nephews above and whether they had children)

Seventh duke: at least 7 heirs (2 sons, 4 grandsons, 1 nephew)

Eight duke: at least 8 heirs (1 son (the third and youngest; the elder two sons either died in childhood or in war), 2 grandsons, 1 brother, 3 nephews, 1 great-nephew)

Ninth duke: at least 14 heirs (2 sons, 2 grandsons, 3 first cousins-once-removed,
4 first coursins-twice removed, 1 second cousin, 2 second cousins-once-removed)

Tenth duke: at least 22 heirs (1 son, 3 grandsons (by the son's second wife - I wonder whether the 'need' for male-off spring played a role in their divorce), 1 nephew, 3 second cousins-once removed, 4 second cousins-twice-removed, 5 second cousins-thrice-removed, 1 third cousin, 2 third cousins-twice-removed, 2 third cousins-thrice removed)
 
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).

Generally, for some reason, they seem to only have one son in each generation. The current Kent dukedom is a rarity with not only two sons for the first duke but two for the second as well. The Earl of St Andrews only has the one son but his brother, Lord Nicholas has 3 so there are plenty of heirs to Kent ...

a. The Earl of St Andrews
b. Baron Downpatrick
c. Lord Nicholas Windsor
d. Albert Windsor
e. Leopold Windsor
f. Louis Windsor
g. Prince Michael of Kent
h. Lord Frederick Windsor.

Gloucester only has one heir in each generation - the Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden.

It will be interesting to see if Harry and Meghan have a second son or whether Archie will be the only heir to Sussex in his generation.

Going back to Queen Victoria's youngest son - the Duke of Albany - there are still claimants to that title of course as there are to George III's son, the Duke of Cumberland, a title originally created by George III in 1799 with direct heirs still able to apply to have the title restored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom